Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres (Page 29)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ... 48 49 50

Author

Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 02-23-2006 12:13 PM

quote: David Stambaugh
I bet most would decline the offer because it's analog, it's more hassle (read: it's more labor-intensive) and nobody (outside of us) wants it or cares.

5/70 is NOT coming to a theater near you.

You probably just need one important exhibitor saying yes to 70mm and probably the others will follow suit, they would not risk their competitor putting up a considerably better presentation.

Also give them the example of IMAX, “just” analog and people pay higher prices just for that.

The analog beast is back, 70mm in a theatre near you soon! (and you won’t get that at home)

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 02-23-2006 12:16 PM

Ramon: Nothing would make me happier than to see 70mm make a comeback. I mean that sincerely. [beer]

Memo to exhibitors or other industry people who might be following this thread: Don't listen to me. I may be full of [bs]

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 02-23-2006 01:32 PM

quote: David Stambaugh
But Kodak could GIVE AWAY the filmstock, and it would not be enough incentive. DTS could GIVE AWAY the 70mm readers and even pay for their installation and I seriously doubt there would be very many takers, if any at all.

The reality is that the money to provide half-priced 65mm film would have to come from somewhere. The business case for Kodak continuing to invest millions in R&D to develop new and improved motion picture films is a strong one. Providing a 50% film discount for 25 features as an "incentive" for 65mm production is not, especially since film price is only a small part of the format decision.

| IP: Logged

John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler

Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 02-23-2006 06:15 PM

Not only that but how many DP's out there have experience with shooting 65. Not many I would think. Some get it wrong with 35, let alone 65! What about features that will use the D.I process in post-production. I'm sure that there are scanning services for 5/65 but wouldn't that add more cost to the production? Remember the bean counters run the show too. It's being said here before but how about getting better quality 35 prints into Theatres firstly. I see no point in having a few 70mm screenings and then upon seeing a film that not released in 70, still having to put up with shoddy made 35mm prints. If you think about it the 4/35 format should of being abandoned long, long ago.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-23-2006 07:50 PM

Lack of experience shooting 65mm? Blah!

I'll put it this way (perhaps at risk of pissing off a few folks), anyone who is able to list the letters "ASC" after his name in a movie's credits should be able to handle shooting in 65mm and do it well.

Again, I'll bring up the point about the special venue niche field of filmmaking. Those guys work with much smaller budgets, much larger camera gear (like a 300 pound IMAX camera) and still manage to do great work. And many of the guys doing that kind of work don't get "ASC" put after their names.

I flatly refuse to dignify a $100 million+ production any excuse at all for lacking the technical ability to shoot a movie in 5/65mm or VistaVision. Today's feature films are not getting shot in large format simply because the producers and distributors flatly refuse to pay for it. They don't want to do it. Simple as that. It is VERY FEASIBLE to shoot a movie in 65mm. There isn't some elusive magical property a production must find to somehow manage making a movie in 65mm.

All of the decision makers also belive the cattle that makes up our general public is all too happy to accept declining image quality standards. Audiences kept coming to theaters after 1970 when most native 65mm production stopped. I heard lots of crazy "digital is better than film" drink the kool-aid bullshit when those 1/2 HDTV quality 1.2K DLP systems were first deployed.

Hell, I might have been able to buy into the bullshit as well -if I didn't have to deal with computer graphics all the time and know the real comparisons between analog film originals and medium resolution dupes.

quote: John Koutsoumis
It's being said here before but how about getting better quality 35 prints into Theatres firstly. I see no point in having a few 70mm screenings and then upon seeing a film that not released in 70, still having to put up with shoddy made 35mm prints.

I disagree with that ultimatum. There is a growing number of movie theaters with installed screens that spread 70' in width or larger. Any such theater needs 70mm projection ALL THE TIME. 35mm simply is not adequate. No 35mm projector made can get enough light out of the port to properly illuminate a screen of that size. It is physically impossible.

Most 35mm systems are probably going to disappear pretty quick. I have to admit, I was pretty stunned when reading the press release from Carmike Cinemas where they said they will convert ALL of their theaters to 2K DLP Christie units by the end of 2007. If they're going to do a circuit-wide conversion then AMC, Regal and all the other big circuits are probably going to do the same thing as well. By 2010, 35mm projection may be a pretty rare thing.

Since video projection has never been proven to work on giant screens (particularly from a single digital projector) maybe that could be a chance for formats like 70mm to make a resurgence. On the downside, I'm sure the excuse "there aren't any qualified operators" will be the justification to use a video projector to throw an image on a 80' wide screen with pictures dimmer than ever.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-23-2006 10:20 PM

Most 35mm prints nowdays are better than many older prints so I disagree with the comment of shoddy 35mm prints

| IP: Logged

John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler

Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 02-24-2006 04:17 AM

I'm not saying all prints are shoddy but on fair number of occaasions they are. The 2 first Matrix films and the first Harry Potter experiences I had were terrible. Lack of sharpness, poor contrast, excessive grain, poor black levels. I doubt the films looked like this at their "premieres". There are many others too. My feeling is that 35mm prints of major films on most parts don't look as good as they really could. One Multiplex over here
(now closed) I thought was very poor in its on screen presentation, that is until they programmed a season of Hong Kong mainstream films. You would walk into those screenings and see bright, sharp fine looking films, even though some had dark stylistic themes. 2 films from that season that come to mind were "Full Time Killer" and "Running out of Time 2" (I'm not saying all Hong Films look great. Last year I screened Johnny To's "Election" and that was horrible to boot).You can then see a Hollywood film of similar genre and the images were barely acceptable. I know how good 35 can be.
In regards to the big huge screens of course 35 can't cut it. I agree you need 70 for that. Personally I no longer see the big mega-trillion budget films and would like the smaller films to have quality prints too.
I don't know what happened to them since but there was a company here doing trails for DC and there main selling point was that 35mm prints don't have the quality as they really should. Sad But True. I'm all for Film not Digital but I won't go see a film just cause it's in 70mm. That's stupid. There has to be more reason to see it than that.

quote: Bobby Henderson
All of the decision makers also belive the cattle that makes up our general public is all too happy to accept declining image quality standards. Audiences kept coming to theaters after 1970 when most native 65mm production stopped. I heard lots of crazy "digital is better than film" drink the kool-aid bullshit when those 1/2 HDTV quality 1.2K DLP systems were first deployed.

Yeah I have heard that to but a question I have is did the exhibitors voice concern over the decline in 70mm prints in the early/mid 1990's or did they just accept it on the basis that compressed digital audio was superior? Or did even blink at it?
(and yes I know that CDS was a 35 & 70 system).

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 02-24-2006 06:12 AM

quote: David Stambaugh
Ramon: Nothing would make me happier than to see 70mm make a comeback. I mean that sincerely.

I am happy to read this David.

I think we have proved that 65mm originated printed on 70mm is much better than current digital projection.

How about if we start a workgroup to bring all these ideas into practice? Maybe we should start a new thread called “65/70mm independent workgroup” or something like this and try to bring as many people into it as possible. The great majority of us are not biased by any economic interest and our interest is just to bring good quality 65/70 filming and screening back. We should look at the different providers of 65mm film stock and their prices, we should look at the different labs and their prices. We should write to the directors of photography guild in different countries and get their input and support. We should write to associations of exhibitors and distributors in many countries. So many things to do… We should get the ball rolling and get as many, many, many people as possible.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-24-2006 01:12 PM

quote: John Koutsoumis
I'm not saying all prints are shoddy but on fair number of occaasions they are. The 2 first Matrix films and the first Harry Potter experiences I had were terrible. Lack of sharpness, poor contrast, excessive grain, poor black levels. I doubt the films looked like this at their "premieres".

I doubt if the print was the problem.

There are two likely culprits for the issues you described. 1.: the theater is running operations on the cheap, turning down lamp power and their projection equipment might be crap in the first place. Not all film projectors and lens packages are created equal. 2.: the theater might have had good equipment but was showing the movie on a screen far too large for 35mm projection.

That issue right there is very likely why IMAX chose to develop that DMR process thing. Throughout the 1990s a decent number of commercial movie theater chains were adding IMAX theaters to their multiplex designs. Previously, you would only see an IMAX theater attached to a museum or major tourist attraction. Many of these commercial theaters were installing regular 35mm projection setups alongside the IMAX gear -so they could show regular movies on that giant screen. Many of those 35mm shows on IMAX screens looked like shit.

Maybe IMAX saw that problem as a threat to the image of their brand. They definitely saw it as an opportunity: show the movies using IMAX projection to make the image properly bright. And throw in a proprietary image enhancement process to also enhance the IMAX bottom line.

quote: John Koutsoumis
Yeah I have heard that to but a question I have is did the exhibitors voice concern over the decline in 70mm prints in the early/mid 1990's or did they just accept it on the basis that compressed digital audio was superior? Or did even blink at it?

Many exhibitors just accepted it. The lure of being able to install 5.1 channel digital surround playback into just about any theater was too big a ground-breaking improvement to stonewall. However, Dolby and Sony made a mistake by not offering any support for the 70mm gauge. Cinema Digital Sound and DTS have both supported 70mm.

Dolby and Sony made their decision not to support 70mm on Dolby Digital and SDDS systems based on the assumption theaters throughout the 70's, 80's and early 90's were only using 70mm prints to get surround sound. In many cases that was true. But they ignored the fact a 35mm projector can throw an image only so large while maintaining a proper amount of brightness, sharpness and color saturation. At some point a 70mm print becomes necessary. I contend that point is hit with screens 60' wide or larger.

In the mid 1990s when the stadium seating theater building boom began, a new trend toward larger screen sizes -with some going gigantic- also began. The UA Galaxy theater in suburban Dallas opened in 1996 with two of its theaters boasting screens wider than 70'. Big banners were hung on the outside of the theater proclaiming, "The Biggest Screens in Texas!" 35mm hasn't been enough to light those screens well. It's interesting the same theater had a 70mm Showscan RideFilm attraction for awhile.

In the end, it was appropriate to split the multi-channel surround element from being exclusive to 70mm. Still, 70mm got a stuidly raw deal from so many thinking the wider gauge was only needed for sound.

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
How about if we start a workgroup to bring all these ideas into practice? Maybe we should start a new thread called “65/70mm independent workgroup” or something like this and try to bring as many people into it as possible.

You can have every Film-Tech member participate in such a thread, but we would all be preaching to the choir. It makes little difference to have some kind of "workgroup discussion" here. The topic of 70mm has been raised and discussed many times previous to this thread.

Most FT members know it would not be difficult to get key theaters to where they can play shows in 5/70mm with DTS. The real difficulty is convincing a few people in key positions throughout the motion picture production and exhibition processes that 70mm is worthwhile. I think many of those guys know they really ought to be using 70mm in the largest theaters. But they don't want to spend the money for it and they think most people are happy with the dim pictures they're seeing from 35mm.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 02-24-2006 06:33 PM

John Koutsoumis said:

quote: John Koutsoumis
I'm all for Film not Digital but I won't go see a film just cause it's in 70mm. That's stupid. There has to be more reason to see it than that.

...which is why I think it's a good idea to really explore the dye transfer possibility that Ramon raised originally and not to dismiss it until one is absolutely sure it can never be done. Sometimes there's just too much instant dismissal of ideas, happens in all walks of life.

Re. a Workgroup, etc., the mechanics of this can be discussed, in that how things are done are just as important as the work itself.

And, why should e.g. Kodak heavily subsidise this? Everyone's trying to make an honest living. That kind of ethic bankrupts everything. It all has to be done fairly and squarely.

Also, to reassure you Mr. Stambaugh, anything and everything is possible. No matter how bad things look, there are always possibilities. They just have to be explored to the nth degree!

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-24-2006 06:54 PM

quote: John Koutsoumis
I'm all for Film not Digital but I won't go see a film just cause it's in 70mm. That's stupid. There has to be more reason to see it than that.

Have you ever seen 4 perf 35mm projected onto a 80' wide screen? That kind of thing looks pretty stupid.

Whether the 70mm print is advertised or not, there is more than enough justification to book 70mm prints into such auditoriums. We're talking rooms with around 700 seats. That's more than triple the seating count for most theaters. The 70mm DTS print and the additional 35mm print (either for backup or to play on additional screens) would easily pay itself.

I'm not suggesting placing a freaking 5/70mm blowup print in a 200 seat auditorium for use on a 35' wide screen. There's little point in doing that. However, if a movie is originated in 65mm, then viewers will see a big difference in image quality no matter where the print is shown.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-24-2006 07:21 PM

John,

You misunderstood...I didn't say sell the 65mm stock at 1/2-price...I said give it away for those features. The goal is to re-establish film as THE reference and to have that generate future sales. I couldn't see going to less than 3-features each, your odds aren't as good on successful features to show off the format.

As to what to take away from...for such an endevor, just about anywhere from within Kodak, its film future is truely at stake whether they see it or not. Yes, I would ratchet back on R&D briefly to invest in such a venture to sell the product.

quote: John Pytlak
How do you fairly choose which 25 features get 65mm film for the price of 35mm film? If you were a producer already using lots of 65mm color negative for IMAX or other large venue productions, wouldn't you expect a similar "deal"? And what film R&D programs would you cancel to pay for such largesse?

The studios can decide which features best warrant such effort. Remember too, changing the film size requires a different level of talent behind the camera and expense. For sure, having directors that are apt to make use of the format would be ideal and I'll bet they are most apt to request from the studio to use it.

As to IMAX wanting the same deal..sure everyone wants free but they would be out of line. This sort of investment by Kodak is for Kodak to grow a market that presently does not exist. IMAX is already using the product, the market exists. It is no different than HBO giving away its service for 90-days to NEW subscribers and not just giving all of their subscribers free 90-days...they are tyring to pick up a market that presently isnt using their service.

The key here is the word investment...there would truely be no difference in investing in 65/70mm in this sort of manner than developing a new vision super-duper premier 3 stock. Other than the new film stock would be to sell to a continually dwindling market in the name of hanging on to as much of what you have. Developing a 65/70 market is one for which growth is needed and benefits most everyone. It is a superior product, it presently is cheaper than DCinema to own and maintain, it benefits all forms of distribution.

All 65/70mm needs is a little kick to get it going again. 25 or so features would absolutely guarantee you a hit in there somewhere and hopefully many more. With 70mm releases tied to the deal, it wouldn't even be a total give away.

quote: John Pytlak
IMHO, 65mm film is fairly priced, and any incentives are negotiated on a picture-by-picture basis.

No arguement there. It is fairly priced...and nobody in mainstream Hollywood is shooting 5/65 with it. It needs a kick to get it going for it DOES deliver on the promise of being the best by a far stretch.

As odd as it sounds...65/70 can have a future market if developed, 35mm is a format that will be to motion pictures as records are to audio reproduction...not completely absent, but effectively gone from the general public. While 35mm is a ship that is sinking, 70mm is a grand ship that can be revitalized for the forseeable future.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 02-24-2006 07:21 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm not suggesting placing a freaking 5/70mm blowup print in a 200 seat auditorium for use on a 35' wide screen.

Why the hell not??!! That means 70mm would never come to Eugene. [evil]

Actually, why wouldn't 70mm on a 35' screen in a smallish theater look absolutely spectacular? Would there be issues with the optics or something that would limit the resolution in such a screening situation?

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-24-2006 07:26 PM

Nope, I've seen 70mm on tiny screens...looks painted on those screens. The smallest commecial screen I've put it on is 26-feet wide...looked notably superior to the 35mm version of the same title on the same size screen in the same complex (True for Star Trek IV, Untouchables...are the ones that come to mind...and that from a mere Simplex PR-3570 using "blow ups"). The Untouchables was noted by it was a 2.35:1 AR on the 70mm relesae prints with thick frame lines (hard matte) to ensure the proper ratio.

Steve

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 02-24-2006 07:36 PM

To promote 70mm only for large screens seems like a flawed strategy. Today's multiplexes need to move movies around to different-sized houses. If 70mm is gonna be a marketing tool that equates to the best possible presentation, then it shouldn't matter what size theater we're talking about. The exhibitor needs to be able to advertise the movie as being presented in "Panavision-70/HD", or whatever it ends up being called, through the entire run of the film in their theater. A movie like "Narnia" needs that 70mm presentation for longer than just the first couple of weeks. It would be criminal if "Narnia" got bumped from 70mm to 35mm just to make room for Big Momma's House 2's opening weekend. Any multiplex committing to 70mm needs it on at least 1 large screen AND 1 small screen.

Speaking of Untouchables in 70mm: Anyone who saw it probably remembers that one crane shot of the city street which looked absolutely incredibly sharp and detailed. It almost looked like that few seconds of film was from a 65mm negative. [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ... 48 49 50

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.